Towards a Global Criminology?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Edinburgh Research Explorer Towards a Global Criminology Citation for published version: Jones, R 2011, 'Towards a Global Criminology'. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1988359> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Publisher Rights Statement: © Jones, R. (2011). Towards a Global Criminology. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 University of Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper Series No 2012/05 Towards a Global Criminology? Richard Jones Lecturer in Criminology University of Edinburgh, School of Law [email protected] This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the name(s) of the author(s), the title, the number, and the working paper series © 2012 Richard Jones Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper Series University of Edinburgh Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1988359 Abstract The aim of this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects, of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be becoming more global in nature. The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly, referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as to the field’s many sub-disciplines. The article begins by considering international and comparative criminology, before reviewing previous work that has raised the prospect of a ‘global criminology.’ The focus then shifts to consideration of the question, ‘what is criminology?’, prompted in particular by the various essays in Bosworth and Hoyle (eds) (2011). It is argued that this question usefully draws attention to certain problems currently facing Anglo-American criminology, and contends moreover that these issues are related in certain respects to issues that will face criminology as it globalises. Drawing from work by Wenger (1999) and others, a novel way of conceptualising the field of criminology is proposed, namely as a group of ‘communities of practice.’ The article shows how not only does this approach help model some of the challenges facing Anglo- American criminology both domestically and globally, but that it also suggests some practical measures that could be undertaken to help overcome these problems. Keywords Criminology, Globalization, Theoretical Criminology, Research, Academic Community Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1988359 University of Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper 2012/05 1. Introduction The aim of this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects, of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be becoming more global in nature.1 The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly, referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as to the field’s many sub- disciplines. The article begins by considering international and comparative criminology, before reviewing previous work that has raised the prospect of a ‘global criminology’. The focus then shifts to consideration of the seemingly more parochial question, ‘what is criminology?’ It is argued that this question usefully draws attention to certain problems currently facing Anglo-American criminology, and contends moreover that these issues are related in certain respects to issues that will face criminology as it globalises. Drawing from work by Wenger (1999) and others, a novel way of conceptualising the field of criminology is proposed, namely as a group of ‘communities of practice’. The article shows how not only does this approach help model some of the challenges facing Anglo-American criminology both domestically and globally, but that it also suggests some practical measures that could be undertaken to help overcome these problems. 2. International, comparative and global criminology Comparative criminology of some form or another has existed for some time (see for example the international dimension to the work of Lombroso, 1911). In relation to crime causation, criminologists have been interested in comparing crime rates in different countries and trying to account for the differences: why does Japan apparently have a much lower crime rate than Germany, for example? Similarly, in the field of policing, criminologists have asked whether differing systems of community policing between the United States and (again) Japan are significant, and whether these might be factors in explaining different crime rates and perceptions of 1 This article is based on a paper entitled ‘Towards a Global Criminology’ presented at the ‘Legal Exchange and Cooperation between Korea and the EU’ conference (SKKU BK21 Glocal Science and Technology Law Program), SungKyunKwan University, Seoul, South Korea, in June 2011. I am extremely grateful to the staff and students at SKKU Law School for the invitation to speak at the conference, for their warm hospitality, and for their helpful comments and suggestions. This article also draws from material prepared for ‘Some remarks about What is Criminology?’, a paper given at a seminar to mark the launch of Bosworth and Hoyle (eds) (2011), What is Criminology? (Oxford University Press)' presented at the All Souls Criminology Seminar Series, Oxford, in February 2011. Again, I am most grateful for the invitation to speak and for the feedback received. Page 1 of 26 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1988359 University of Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper 2012/05 police legitimacy (Bayley, 1992; though see also Hamai and Ellis, 2006). Comparative criminal justice has studied different principles informing criminal justice systems (for example as between adversarial, inquisitorial, and restorative systems); and different imprisonment rates between countries: for example, why does Scotland imprison 152 people per 100,000 of its population, France only 96, and Norway just 69? Why does Singapore imprison 267 per 100,000 people, South Korea just 93, and Japan only 63? (Walmsley, 2009). Such research thus involves the study of comparative data, and the explanations proposed to account for similarities and differences would seem to require internationally applicable theories. In an attempt to explain international variations in imprisonment rates, for instance, Cavadino and Dignan (2006) have proposed a model in which countries are said to belong to one of four social and political ‘types’ that are more or less penal in approach. Along the same lines, though advancing a more detailed analysis, Lacey (2008: 56-57) seeks to move beyond what she sees as a mere ‘typology’ to a more ‘explanatory model’ arguing that wider social and economic forces are mediated by each country’s particular institutions (including welfare provision and constitutional frameworks). Within criminology recently there has also been growing interest in how processes of globalisation might change the nature of crime (Franko Aas, 2007). Additionally, criminological research today includes the study of phenomena that while not necessarily international are nonetheless often so, such as illicit criminal networks (Morselli, 2009) or cybercrime (Wall, 2007). Further topics with a strong international dimension include international terrorism and its policing (see Deflem, 2010); people smuggling, including for the sex trade; sex ‘tourism’ (travelling to foreign countries to use prostitutes); money laundering (Gilmore, 2004); weapons smuggling; international organised crime; drugs smuggling; illicit smuggling of antiquities (Mackenzie, 2011); cash smuggling; high-value vehicle theft and smuggling; and international ecological harms such as may be caused by pollution (White, 2009). In relation to policing, there has been study of ‘transnational policing’ (in other words, ‘cross-border’ policing) (Sheptycki, 2000). Moving from crime-types to comparative criminal justice, it has been argued in recent years that international similarities in responses to crime can be discerned across various countries, leading to the academic focus on mechanisms of ‘policy transfer’ from one country to another (Jones and Newburn, 2007), on the international spread of ‘penal populism’ (Roberts Page 2 of 26 University of Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper 2012/05 et al. 2003; Pratt, 2007), on a ‘culture of control’ (Garland, 2001), and on the policy transfer of repressive ‘neoliberal’ penal and welfare strategies (Wacquant, 2009). It could be argued, though, that while these are ‘international’, ‘transnational’ (Sheptycki and Wardak, 2005), or even in some cases more or